Zammit v. Internal Revenue Service et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PIO PETER ZAMMIT,
Case No. 14-14155
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [39]
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court's December 7, 2015 order disposing
of his case. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
On December 7, 2015, the Court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, and denying Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 37.) On September 8, 2016, the Court received a
letter from Plaintiff with an attached motion for reconsideration, dated December 23, 2015.
Plaintiff's letter claims that the Court previously entered an order denying the attached
motion, but the Court has neither received this motion before nor ruled upon it. Plaintiff did
not file it properly, and it was never docketed by the Clerk of Court.
Plaintiff's letter also states that he has filed a motion to set aside the judgment, but
the Court has not received that motion, either. Nor has it been docketed by the Clerk of
Court.
Given that the Court only has access to the motion for reconsideration attached to
Plaintiff's letter, this order is restricted to that motion.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration alleges that the Court committed five errors in its
December 7, 2015 order. The Court first finds that Plaintiff's motion fails on two procedural
grounds and then notes, without ruling on the merits, that Plaintiff's motion would likely fail
substantively.
First, by mailing his motion directly to the Court's chambers, Plaintiff did not file his
motion in accordance with the federal rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2) states: "A paper is filed
by delivering it: (A) to the clerk; or (B) to a judge who agrees to accept it for filing." The
Court has not agreed to accept Defendant's motion for filing, and it previously informed
Plaintiff that it would not accept papers mailed to chambers directly. (Dkt. 11, at 1.) The
Court stated: "All future submissions must be filed with the Clerk of Court." Id. Thus, the
Court may deny Plaintiff's motion as procedurally defective. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2).
Second, Plaintiff's motion is untimely. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h) of the Local Rules for
the Eastern District of Michigan, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen
days of the order to which it objects. Because the Court did not receive Plaintiff's motion
until September 8, 2016, it is untimely. For this reason, in addition to Plaintiff's failure to file
properly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court also notes, without reaching a holding on the merits, that Plaintiff's motion
would likely fail substantively. Under Rule 7.1(h), a timely motion for reconsideration
should only be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have
been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case must result
from a correction of that palpable defect. Plaintiff's motion does not seem to (1) direct the
Court's attention to any new facts or law; (2) point to a clear error committed by the Court;

2

or (3) raise any issues that have not already been litigated. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion
likely fails to meet Rule 7.1(h)'s standard.
For the procedural defects noted above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: September 15, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on September 15, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3